9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions specified in Section 54B(2) of the Act, was not entitled for exemption and the exemption has been rightly denied by the assessing Officer. The reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon 'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarnbir Singh Sawhney Vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 5 SOT 417 (Del). " 3. " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the clear provisions of law while allowing the deduction of Rs. 18, 00, 0001-. Ld. CIT(A) 's observation that 'the investment in FDRs instead of capital gain account scheme constituted only a technical breach of provisions as the appellant was not having control over the money deposited in FDRs which consequently stood utilized for specified purpose' is not a relevant criterion to decide-the eligibility of the assessee for exemption having regard to the clear provisions of aaww." 4. "That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. " 2.From the above grounds, it is gathered that only grievance of the Department relates to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 18 lakh made by the AO on account of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and that the deposits in FDRs instead of a scheme specified u/s 54B (2) of the Act constituted only a technical breach and the deduction should be allowed by applying a liberal interpretation since those provisions are in the nature of beneficiary provisions. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- (i) Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 118 ITR 326 (S C) (ii) CIT VS Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006)286 ITR 274 (Gau) (iii) Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla VS ACIT in ITA NO. 49231Del12010 order dated 30/06/2011 6. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assesses deleted the addition made by the AO by observing that the assessee filed the original return within the period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and had filed a revised return on 12/3/2008 and the revised return partakes the character of original returns. The Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT VS. Jagirti Agrawal (2011) 15 Taxman.com 146 has held that if investment in new asset is made even before the time prescribed u/s 139(4) and the return is filed belatedly, the claim of deduction shall be allowable. He also obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. was being used by [the assessee being an individual or his parent. or a Hindu undivided family] for agricultural purposes [hereinafter referred to as the original asse. and the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (i) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the land so purchased (hereinafter referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45as the income of the previous) 'ear; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three ) 'ears of its purchase, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) If the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset. the capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. In this regard the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CrT VS. Jagtaar Singh Chawla (2013) ... 215 Taxman 154 observed in para 9 and 10 as under:- 9. A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a case reported as CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006J 286ITR 274/157 Taxman 398, held that only Section 139 of the Act is mentioned in Section 54(2) of the Act in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income Tax under section 139 of the Act and that it would include extended period to file return in terms of Sub Section 4 of Section 139 of the Act. It was held as under:- "From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in Section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax uls 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
